Electric cars

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

If anyone is interested, here are the new Nissan Leaf list prices.

I ordered a Leaf 2.Zero in "Spring Cloud" on Tuesday. I think I am too soft as when I showed a £573 cheaper vehicle on line, they didn't quibble about adding some £800 of extras that I had on a wants list. It looks like an early March delivery for my order.

NigeWick

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I honestly don't think it's quite as simple as that.

Very little ever is. I honestly think that Tony Seba has it correct with his forecasting. Four years ago he showed the predicted cost reductions in batteries and reality is actually ahead of that curve.

Once the initial cost of an EV is less than a fossil burner the contest will be over. Petroleum product distributors will also be selling electricity as Shell and others are already starting to do. Therefore those with no off street parking will have somewhere to "refuel." Even now, councils & at least one company are installing charge points in lamp posts.

I have found that I can manage in an EV with a realistic range of 100 miles, although tootling around town the 30kWh Nissan Leaf will actually give me about 150 miles. The new car I am getting will do 140-150 realistic miles and I get bladder anxiety after about 120-140. The initial cost is still quite high, but, with some solar home charging, lower than fossil costs on main routes and cheaper servicing I think I'm on to a winner already.

People have mentioned those who are at present disadvantaged. Once we have Transport as a Service most of us will not need to own a vehicle. I'm looking forward to a large man cave in about 10-15 years time, you know where my double garage is now...

welfayre

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Not just cars, but buses and taxi's, (lots of them):

100% — Chinese City’s Record-Smashing 16,359 Electric Bus Fleet

I posted that link a few days ago but it was ignored by you lot while you were having your finger in your ears "I'm right you're wrong" shouting match.

You've also got to remember that, while fairly large scale, that example is just one city. 16000 odd buses and 12000 odd taxis is a long way off the 35 million cars in the U.K.

You also need to keep in mind the Chinese are happy to build as many fossil fuel fired plants as necessary to meet demand and control most of the rare earth market needed for electrification, again largely due to their disregard for the environment.

In fact after refining one ton of rare earth elements, approximately 75m3 of acidic waste water and about one ton of radioactive waste are produced. That's part of the reason rare earth isn't mined in many other countries, that and the fact that most people don't want massive open-pit mines scarring their country.

Actually using open-pit mines to extract finite radioactive waste producing materials is a very strange way to go about "saving the environment" don't you think?

zeupater

daveyjp wrote: »

You can’t create or destroy energy so if you want more power you need more energy. All you can do is improve efficiency so more energy is used in moving the vehicle and better regen systems to recharge the battery.

The only potential advantage with an increase to 150ps is if the car is certified for towing.

Hi

The issue being missed is that just because the potential to utilise the power is there, it doesn't need to be used. It's pretty easy to press a button which reconfigures the power delivery mode (eg: Eco, Normal, Power) and also possible to supply vehicles with a standard drivetrain and have performance capabilities limited by software ... major computer manufacturers have been building large systems based on standardised processors for decades and shipping them on a software-limited performance basis, all that's happening is that with EVs, the automotive sector is playing catch-up.

What needs to be remembered is that in comparison to ICEs, electric motors are remarkably lightweight and small, therefore propulsion product standardisation over multiple platforms rises to the top of the manufacturers' priority list pretty quickly ... although the power in the new Nissan Leaf has been increased, the 0-60 performance (~8.5s ?) only compares to a reasonable ICE vehicle despite the huge torque delivery advantages ... it's likely that Nissan are simply utilising power-train components which they intend to share across multiple platforms to leverage component-bin standardisation economies of scale.

HTH
Z

zeupater

Car_54 wrote: »

Today's Times reports that

- Tesla actually built FEWER cars in the last quarter than in the corresponding period last year, in what it descriibes as "manufacturing hell".

- the target of 5,000 model 3s per week has been put back (again) to the end of Q2

- shares fell by 2%

In November, the latest financial figures showed a QUARTERLY loss of $619 million.

Regardless of the merits of EVs, Tesla seems singularly inept as a manufacturer. And especially so as a forecaster.

Hi

Alternatively, Tesla's Q4 press release as available here this morning ...

... In Q4, Tesla delivered 29,870 vehicles, of which 15,200 were Model S, 13,120 were Model X, and 1,550 were Model 3. This was once again our all-time best quarter for combined Model S and X deliveries, representing a 27% increase over Q4 2016, and a 9% increase over Q3 2017, our previous best quarter.

In total, we exceeded our previously announced guidance by delivering 101,312 Model S and X vehicles in 2017. This was a 33% increase over 2016.


In addition to Q4 deliveries, about 2,520 Model S and X vehicles and 860 Model 3 vehicles were in transit to customers at the end of the quarter. These will be counted as deliveries in Q1 2018.


Q4 production totaled 24,565 vehicles, of which 2,425 were Model 3. As we previously indicated, we slightly reduced Model S and X production in Q4 because of the reallocation of some of the manufacturing workforce towards Model 3 production, which also caused inventory to decline ...

http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1053245


Obviously not as bad at planning/forecasting as indicated ... it's standard for automotive manufacturers to build forward in times of change, it's deliveries of the existing models that the article should have been concerned with, not production, and the delivery data certainly paints a completely different picture ...

HTH
Z

almillar

I don’t understand why they have felt it necessary to increase power to 150ps, far better to have extra range

That would be to suggest that just because the motor has more power, that it WILL reduce range. Sure, if you use that power, it WILL, but if you're driving economically (the only way you'll get that promised range), you're not using the power anyway. Nice to have it though. Plenty of tools available to you (ECO mode for example) if you don't trust yourself with that much power.

So, in your world, the fact that there's a large waiting list, means that cars aren't being delivered!

I do have to defend Adrian a bit here (although I note he went quiet on the Zoe conversation). There's no such thing as a Model 3 in the UK. There won't be until at least 2019. The truck that they unveiled, rolled in, possibly under its own power. You can't seriously suggest that it is definitely a road-ready model. There's already too much 'don't buy that, buy this' stuff in this arena - most manufacturers have announced/shown a raft of electric cars and made all sorts of promises, but the cars that are actually ON SALE, being BUILT NOW are the only viable ones. If you tell me to buy a VW Golf GTE, for example, I can't, because VW had to close orders for it because they can't keep up.

Regardless of the merits of EVs, Tesla seems singularly inept as a manufacturer. And especially so as a forecaster.

I think that's a bit harsh. See above my comment about the Golf GTE. Compared to ICE cars whose mass manufacturing process has been almost perfected over decades, building this new type of car, for a new company, and old ones (BMW and Renault have long waiting lists) has sticking points.

AdrianC

There appears to be a difference between "built" and "delivered". 29,870 vehicles delivered, but only 24,565 built. Especially in the US, that's a very significant difference, because dealers tend to supply cars from their local stock, rather than place factory orders. Remove the 3,380 cars heading to dealers from that, and only 21,185 of the Q4 production has been delivered so far.

We finally have a full Q4 figure for 3 production, to add to the pre-Q4 222 cars. 1,935 cars in December, for a total of 2,647 cars to the end of the year... That's a grand total to date of half a week's production at even the half-scale production rate being forecast, and a long, LONG way below the original forecast of 100k by the end of the year, and half of Martyn's 5,000 guesstimate back in post 467. Just 1,550 delivered in the quarter - and how many of them are Tesla staff, dealer demos, and other priority "insiders" who jumped the queue, rather than denting the launch deposits from real customers?

almillar wrote: »

I do have to defend Adrian a bit here (although I note he went quiet on the Zoe conversation).

There was nothing more to say - I pointed to Renault's own information that directly contradicted the "personal experiences", and stated the basis for the "complete rubbish" pricing figures I'd quoted, with links. The person shooting them down then posted their own invoice, which clearly confirmed my figures and clearly stated the ~30% discount they'd been given on the published street list price.

We appear to be dealing with religious zealots, as ever with EV threads, who deny all facts and reality when inconvenient.

Martyn1981

daveyjp wrote: »

You can’t create or destroy energy so if you want more power you need more energy. All you can do is improve efficiency so more energy is used in moving the vehicle and better regen systems to recharge the battery.

The only potential advantage with an increase to 150ps is if the car is certified for towing.

Hiya, what I meant was, that a larger ICE will burn more fuel doing the same job as a smaller ICE, and of course at idle too, but does that apply to EV motors too (I don't know?)

Does a 150ps motor consume more leccy than a 100ps motor when supplying 100ps or less? I suspect energy consumption is only marginally higher for larger EV motors.

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

I do have to defend Adrian a bit here (although I note he went quiet on the Zoe conversation). There's no such thing as a Model 3 in the UK. There won't be until at least 2019. The truck that they unveiled, rolled in, possibly under its own power. You can't seriously suggest that it is definitely a road-ready model. There's already too much 'don't buy that, buy this' stuff in this arena - most manufacturers have announced/shown a raft of electric cars and made all sorts of promises, but the cars that are actually ON SALE, being BUILT NOW are the only viable ones. If you tell me to buy a VW Golf GTE, for example, I can't, because VW had to close orders for it because they can't keep up.

But to be clear, Adrian is claiming that Model 3's aren't being delivered, and then when it's been pointed out that they are, he claims that a waiting list means that they aren't (again).

Not sure why you say the truck 'may have rolled in under its own power', have you seen the launch footage, and the test rides afterwards? The claim by Adrian was:-

AdrianC wrote: »

<chuckle> You really believe they're anything other than a styling mock-up that's more-or-less self-propelled across a stage? Pull the other one. You're almost as addicted to St Elon's Kool-Aid as Martyn.

So again, his claims don't match reality, a reality that is available for all of us to see and check if we wish.

Martyn1981

welfayre wrote: »

I posted that link a few days ago but it was ignored by you lot while you were having your finger in your ears "I'm right you're wrong" shouting match.

Apologies for upsetting you, but your post was on the 2nd of Jan, whilst this article wasn't published till the 3rd of Jan, so not the same article/link.

Also your link goes to an old article dated 8/3/15.

However I appreciate that the 1st of Jan article is very similar, so apologies for any duplication.